According to the National Audit Office, the military pension insurance system will go broke in 2019, the labor insurance system in 2027, the insurance system for teachers in 2028 and that for civil servants in 2030. Even the national pension system that was introduced in 2008 will go broke in 2046, it says.
If the pension system is not reformed, not only military personnel three years from now, but any worker now under 54 and any civil servant below the age of 51 will not receive any pension at all.
There are three reasons why the pension system is facing this difficult situation. The labor insurance and the military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers insurance systems established in the 1950s were a way for the authoritarian government to appease the different professions by offering payouts far higher than the sums paid in. Insurance premiums were so low that there was no way that these systems would be sustainable.
In addition, the difference between the health insurance system and that of the pension schemes insures economic security after retirement, so it was almost predetermined that this kind of crisis would appear. The result is that the only way to solve the problem is to divide risk between generations.
Finally, Taiwan’s population is set to age rapidly over the next 30 years, and so it will be impossible for the younger generations to foot the bill for the older generations paying high pay-as-you-go premiums.
However, the goal of pension reform is not to pursue fiscal equilibrium. Even if different professions were willing to triple their premiums in order to pay for their own future pensions, such reform would turn social insurance into commercial insurance, and it would remove the shared risk that is spread across the general public.
At first sight, the government subsidies that make up for the difference between premiums and payments is a fiscal issue, but tax revenue comes from the tax-paying public. This means that the debate about pension reform is a fundamental value debate about income redistribution and generational transition.
The ultimate goal of pension reform is to guarantee the economic security for every worker after they have retired. This is why the first goal is to set a basic universal pension that covers every Taiwanese and as far as possible gives them a dignified life in retirement.
On top of this pension, a professional pension could be established that guarantees the income differences between different professions as a way of showing respect for the value of work.
We are suggesting that the government and civic groups provide clear individual reform proposals and financial plans to be debated by society at large. This could prevent the debate from deteriorating into an emotional argument between different professions that would turn questions over a social insurance system that spreads risk and promotes social unity into a dispute that deepens the social divide between professions.
If the government and civic groups could propose a universal basic pension system offering generous payments, they would provide a foundation for reforming labor, military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers, national and farmers’ pensions.
Based on shared risk, the public as a whole could then work together to ground the Taiwanese identity in their everyday lives, and the pension system could thus have the same positive effect that the National Health Insurance has had.
It is this that should be the ultimate goal of pension reform.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS